[1a] And he began to speak unto them by parables.
- ‘mashal’ (=parable) means ‘taunt’ at Habbakuk 2:6. If Jesus’ actions here with his interlocutors isn’t meant to be taunting, what is?
[1b] A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winevat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
-‘rejection of the prophet theme’ = see Jeremiah 7:24, Baruch 1:19f, 2nd Chronicles 36:13-21, Nehemiah 9:26-37
[2] And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. [3] And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.
[4] And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.
[5] And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; flaying some, and killing yet more.
-Mark 12:5 = “flaying [δεροντες]”
-Micah 2:8 = either the Lord (or the prophet he speaks through, it’s unclear) has his “skin flayed” [δοραν εξεδειραν] whether literally or metaphorically is unclear as well.
[6] Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, ‘They will reverence my son.’ [7] But those husbandmen said among themselves, ‘This is the heir—come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours!’
-Mark 12:7 = “Come on, let’s kill him” (δευτε αποκτεινωμεν αυτον)
-Genesis 37:20 = Joseph’s jealous brothers see him walking along and say among themselves: “Come on, let’s kill him” (δευτε αποκτεινωμεν αυτον).
-These exact words in Greek are used by in Jesus’ parable of the vineyard those stewarding it plan to murder the owner’s son and take his “inheritance” [κληρονομια] for themselves. The underlying allusion is just more aspersions against the 12, the parallel being that Judas (and indirectly the 12 via the symbolism) gets rid of Jesus in a way similar to how Joseph is innocently condemned at the instigation of his brother Judah.
[8] And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
-Mark 12:8= “cast him out [εξεβαλον] of the vineyard [αμπελωνος].”
-Jeremiah 12:7-10, 14 repeatedly mention the Lord’s “inheritance” [κληρονομια] and how because “many have corrupted the vineyard” [αμπελωνα] he will “cast out” [εκβαλω] the “wicked neighbors” from Judea.
[9] What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the tenants, and will give the vineyard to others.
-Luke 11:50 = Matt 23:32 = Matt 27:25 = ‘blood will be required of this generation’ for this see LXX Genesis 9:5 and 42:22
-Luke changed “who you killed” to “who was murdered” referring to Zechariah in 2 chronicles
-in 13:35 (οικος/ονομα) Luke drops Matthew’s ερημος, perhaps echoing Jeremiah 12:7 “I have deserted my house [τον οικον μου], left behind [αϕηκα] my inheritance.”
-Matt 22 mixes this parable into a new one where ‘king’ has a ‘wedding feast’ for his son and then angrily butchers everyone who rebuffed his invitations. He finishes with a reference to Psalm 35, where the man with the fashion faux-pas who is “tied up then thrown out into the street” is meant to parallel the bitter “cripples” of the Psalm, with his “bound hands and feet”
-Mark12:9a= "What then will the vineyard owner do?" = this is drawing from Isa 5:5, but not the MT= the OG/LXX turns a sentence into a question, which Mark mimics: "Now what shall I [=the Lord] tell you about what I will do?
[10] And have ye not read this scripture; ‘The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:’
The verb ‘rejected’ is exactly the same in Jeremiah 8:9 = “They rejected [απεδοκιμασαν] the word of the Lord.” as here at Mark 12:10. We can discern here that this word’s occurrence in Jeremiah—a source which Mark has been drawing from to write this scene—has now led him via word association to quote Isaiah which has a similar image.
-Romans 9:33 misquotes Isaiah 28:16, purposefully mixing it with Isaiah 8:14 so that it makes it seem like the Torah itself is the ‘stumbling-block’ involved, even perhaps the Christ himself, or more specifically Paul’s paradoxical theology of the cross? This is an unexplored possibility by nearly all biblical exegetes since, unable to deal with the consequences of what Paul is saying.
-1Maccabees 4:46 = Judas and his compatriots dismantle the defiled temple altar, and yet “they stored the stone of it on the temple mount in a proper place until a prophet should come [παραγενηθηναι] to deliver a response [αποκριθηναι]” (meaning: when the Messiah arrive he’ll tell them how to handle such a situation of now unclean but previously holy vessels)
As Marcus points out in the Loeb edition, Josephus omits the detail of 1 Macc 4:46 that the stones of the desecrated altar were put away "on the temple-hill in a fitting place until a prophet should come and give a decision about them." While Marcus associates this omission with Josephus' belief that Biblical prophecy has ceased, I suspect that more lies behind it, as prophecy was also expected to be re-initiated by a future "prophet like Moses", i.e., the Messiah. But it is a Messianic prophecy which Josephus ascribes as the cause that more than anything else incited his countrymen to war against the Romans. Thus, omitting the reference is probably deliberate censorship of this inflammatory idea at a time when Josephus is hoping to improve relations between Romans and Jews -- which was the only way the Temple could be rebuilt and a new dedication held.
-Romans 9:33 conflates Isaiah 28:16 with Isaiah 8:14 but leaves out “extreme corner” [ακρογωνιαιον] though 1 peter 2:6-8 does include it, and that word is in Ephesians 2:20.
[11] ‘This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?’
-Mark 12:10-11 quotes Psalm 118:22-23 which Matt 21:42 uses too, but Luke 20:18 changes this, referencing instead the Theodotion translation of Daniel 2:44 (=the same word “crush” [λικμησει])
This is the ultimate point of the Gospel = that the Roman destruction of Jerusalem is Jesus (and Paul’s?) vindication, the same way the Babylonian desolation proved Jeremiah and others like him correct.
[12] And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.
-Micah 2:4 = “In that day, there shall be taken up against you a parable…”
-Micah 2:9 = “The ones leading my people shall be ejected from their luxury homes; due to their bad habits they’ll be evicted.”
-‘Isaiah’s New Exodus’ points out how at Mark 12 the Jewish leaders ‘perceive’ that the vineyard parable is against them but their response is a hostility that leads to their destruction because ‘perception/remembrance’ should lead to repentance as per Mark 1:15= “They now face a new and perhaps final eschatological exile.” (=page 199)
-‘Isaiah’s New Exodus’ (page 339) = “This is why Jesus points to John’s baptism: their refusal to prepare through repentance is the grounds for his announcement of judgement.”
13] And they send unto him certain Pharisees and the Herodians, to catch him up in his words. [14] Approaching, they say unto him, “Master, we know that you are true, and show partiality toward no man: for you regard not the person of men, teaching the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? [15] Shall we give, or shall we not give?” But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, “Why tempt ye me? bring me a coin, that I may see it.”
-Mark 12:15 = “Why do you tempt [πειραζετε] me” Being me [ϕερετε μοι] a coin.”
-we have here a cluster of repeated motifs from chapter 8 = ‘testing,’ ‘bringing,’ ‘Pharisees,’ and even the blindness theme via a joke, i.e. ‘regard not the person’ plus the emphasis on ‘seeing’ a coin.
[16] And they brought it. And he saith unto them, “Whose is this image and superscription?” And they said unto him, “Caesar's.”
-the word “image” [εικων] here hearkens back to Gen 1:26 where humans are made in “according to God’s image” [κατ’ εικονα]
-Mark 12:16 = επιγραϕη (of Caesar)
-Mark 15:26 = επιγραϕη (on the cross)
[17] And Jesus answering said unto them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him.
-though this might sound like some kind of appeasement, giving in to Roman oppressor (=which is Paul’s advice, see letter to Romans 13), this kind of encouragement is not unlike that of Ezekiel 17:11-21 where that prophet accuses Judahites of infidelity not only to their divine Lord YHWH but to their temporal lord the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar! The idea is that God puts such men in power for his own reasons and one is meant to accept this without question. By careful language choice, Ezekiel 21:27 seems to equate Jerusalem’s desolator [=“he who comes who has a right to it”] with the ‘Shiloh’ prophecy of Genesis 49:10.
-Genesis 49:10= “Until Shiloh comes!” An apparent answer to what this mean from the Deuteronomic history itself is that this refers to the prophet Samuel, who in 1 Samuel 1:21-28 is raised by priests in Shiloh and later grows to the one who creates the Messiah David at Bethlehem.
-Ezekiel 21:30-32 = the monarchy shall lie in ruins “until he comes, the one who has a claim against the city.” =does this mean the messianic figure of Genesis 49:10 (‘the one to whome ‘it’ comes’ = here ‘it’ means the diadem of verse 31)= is Ezekiel borrowing messianic motifs and heaping them on Judah’s conqueror? Josephus later does the same with his captor Vespasian.
[18] Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, [19] “Master, Moses wrote unto us, ‘If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.’ [20] “Now there were seven brothers: and the first took a wife, and after dying left no seed.
-Mark has combined the motifs of the seven brothers at 2Maccabees 7 who are resurrected to return back to their mother with the story of Sarah’s seven dead husbands who are murdered at Tobit 3:7-15. This discussion again seems to prove how much this novel by Mark is a fan-fiction about nerds: in this scene some bookish men argue like comic enthusiasts about the powers and limits of their superheros and how the texts should be thought of and interpreted. Mark means for us to picture Jesus and the Sadducees as having read the scroll of Tobit and now they are at the comic book store arguing about semantics and theories. Of course such a modern view is flippant, but still not without merit.
-Tobit itself has a moment of irony at 7:10 when Raguel tells Tobias on his wedding night to “eat drink and be merry.” This is a quote from Isaiah 22:13 which leaves out the final part of that line: “for tomorrow we die.” So Raguel is telling Toby that he expects him to perish unfortunately like Anna’s other cursed husbands killed by the jealous demon Asmodeus.
[21] And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. [22] And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.
-Isaiah 4:1 = in the future “7 women will take hold of one man” and all ask to marry him, in order to “remove their reproach”
[23] In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.” [24] And Jesus answering said unto them, “Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? [25] “For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels, which are in heaven. [26] And as touching the dead, that they rise: have you not read Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’ [27] He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: therefore you are gravely mistaken.”
-Mark 12:26 [=Luke 20:37] where Jesus cites Exodus 3:6 as resurrection reference, might be related to Paul’s discussion in Romans 8.
-1Enoch 15:6-7= angels are all taught that since they are “immortal” that “wives have not been appointed for you.”
-4Maccabees 7:19 and 16:25= Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called “them not having died” but “living unto God.” = see also how it is these three who are specifically promised “the land” (=eretz Yishra’el) at Deuteronomy 11:9—later midrashic traditions have Rabbi Gamaliel argue on behalf of Pharisaic resurrection speculations based on that Torah verse.
[28] And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, “Which is the first commandment of all?” [29] And Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: [30] And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. [31] And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”
-just as in Romans 13:1-7 and 8-10 Mark 12:13-17 then 12:28-34 have a command to love followed by command to obey the established authorities.
-A Marginal Jew IV: law and love by John P Meier page 523= "In my opnion, careful examination of the redactional context, style, and theology of Matthew and Luke make it more likely that their versions of Mark 12:28-34 are simply the results of their own creative activity, recasting the Marcan text for their own purposes."
-A Marginal Jew IV: law and love by John P Meier page 515= "Deut 6:4-5 is never explicitly cited again in the NT. (...) curiously, the significant allusion is an early Christian attempt to develop high christology by "splitting the atom" of the Shema. In 1Cor 8:6, Paul ... divides up the three key words in the Shema: "Lord" [in Greek, kyrios] "God" [in Greek, theos]and "one" [in Greek, heis]."
[32] And the scribe said unto him, “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and ‘there is none other but he:’ [33a] And ‘to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength’, and to ‘love his neighbor as himself’
-the Dead Sea Scroll authors, whoever they were, went out of their way to make sure their followers/readers understood that ‘those different from them’ (i.e. not of their group) are not defined as biblical neighbors=
-Community Rule 1QS never cites the Shma of Deut 6:4-5
-CD 9:2 cites Leviticus 19:18a word for word “not to take vengeance” but deliberately leaves out line 18b “and you shall love your neighbor as yourself” at this point in quoting. Interesting.
-CD 6:20-21 is cited as “each man is to love his brother as himself” but here the meaning is altered/changed, even twisted: the obvious import is to take form the lesson of: care for only those like, the community members, the brothers.
-also QS 1:1-3, 4, 9 = “seek El with one’s heart and all one’s soul … to everything He has chosen … to love the sons of Light.” Again there is an exclusivity, only the righteous are loved.
-the end of 12:33 is of course a citing of Hosea 6:6, something that had been previous used by the author of 1Samuel 15:22 when Samuel rejects Saul’s kingship.
[33b] is ‘more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.’”
-this quotes from Hosea 6, something which is used by the Samuel author to create the scene where Saul’s kingship is taken away from him=
-Hosea 6:6= “I delight [חפצתי] in merciful-works (chesed) not sacrifices [זבח], knowledge (da’at) of God instead of burnt offerings [מעלות].”
-1Sam 15:22 = Samuel opines that the Lord “delights [החפץ] more in obeying the Lord’s voice than in burnt offering [בעלות] sacrifices [וזבחים].”
-Hosea 6:7= “But they like Adam (=Edom?) have transgressed [עברו] the covenant.”
-1Sam 15:24 = Saul admits: “I have transgressed [עברחי] the command of the Lord”
-Hosea 6:11 = mentions a “return” [בשובי] from exile/captivity.
-1Sam 15:25 = “Saul implores Samuel: ‘Forgive me and return [ושוב] again to worship with me.” (cf verse 27 where ironically while turning away from him, Sam’s cloak is ripped which he uses as a metaphor for Saul’s kingdom being ‘torn away’ from him)
[34] And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And after that no dared to question him. [35] And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, “How can the scribes claim that the Messiah is the Son of David? [36] For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.’ [37a] David therefore himself calls him Lord; so how is he then his son?”
-the tax [evasion?] question = Romans 13:8-10 is behind Mark 12:28-34 and 1 Corinthians 15:25-26 behind Mark 12:35-37 both of these letters quotes psalms 118 and 110, which are used as prooftext by Mark and/or his spokesman Jesus in chapter 12 of his gospel.
[37b] And the large crowd heard him gladly.
-Leviticus 10:20= after the high priest Aaron explains away an error his sons Ithamar and Eleazar committed in their liturgical functions: “Moses heard it and was pleased.”
-does Mark intend here to intimate that the ‘common people’s opinion’ would from now on supplant the Mosaic (=to his mind, Pharisaic) haggadah? OT = establishment while NT = the hoi polloi as one?
[38a] And he said unto them in his doctrine, “Beware of the scribes,
-Is Mark here hearkening back to Jeremiah 8:8 = The Torah has been falsified by “the lying pen of the scribes.”
[38b] which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, [39] And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: [40] Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.”
-In the sermon where Jesus warning against ostentatious rabbis (at Mark 12:38f) there are three key-words repeated from the ‘temple cleansing’. These are: “markets” [αγοραις], verse 39: “first place-settings/best-seats” [πρωτοκαθεδριας], then in verse 40 “extra/more” (=referring to judgement/condemnation) [περισσοτερον]. These are hearkening back to the previous chapter, see Mark 11:15 = “buying” [αγοραζοντας] … “chairs/seats’ [καθεδρας] … “doves” [περιστερας]. Mark has rhymed ‘doves’ with ‘more’, which are homonyms in Greek.
-Chapter 12 of Mark references Mark 6 several times, by echoing words.
-Mark 12:37 = “A great crowd heard him gladly” [πολυς οχλος ηκουεν αυτον ηδεως]
-Mark 6:20 = Herod “did much and heard with pleasure [πολλα εποιει και ηδεως αυτου ηκουε] John’s preaching.
-Mark 6:20= Herod: ‘many things he did and heard him with pleasure’ (John Baptist) [πολλα εποιει και ηδεως αυτου ηκουε]
=here ‘polla’ becomes ‘polus’
-Mark 12:39 = “first place at supper” [πρωτοκλισιας εν τοις δειπνοις]
-Mark 6:21 = “a supper for the principle men [δειπνον… τοις πρωτοις]” of Galilee
-Mark 6:18 = ουκ εξεστι σοι εχειν την γυναικα του αδελϕου σου
-Mark 12:19 = “that should take his brother’s wife” [ινα λαβη ο αδελϕος αυτον την γυναικα αυτου]
-Mark 12:25 = neither marry nor given in marriage
-Mark 6:17 = “for he’d married her…”
-Mark 6:14 = Herod musing about John “that ... from the dead he’s raised” [οτι … εκ νεκρων ηγερθη]
-Mark 12:26 = “the dead, that they arise” [νεκρων οτι εγειρονται]
-Mark 6:14 = “works of power” [δυναμεις] operate in John
-Mark 12:24 = “ye know not the power [δυναμιν] of God?”
Mark 12:39 – the rabbis prefer “first place at dinners” [πρωτοκλισιας εν τοις δειπνοις]
-Mark 6:21 = δειπνον … τοις πρωτοις
-Mark 12:4 = εκεϕαλαιωσαν
-Mark 6:27 = απεκεϕαλισεν
[41] And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
-Nehemiah 13:8= "I tossed items/furniture of the house of Tobias out of the treasury." [ερριψα σκευη οικου of Τωβια εξω… γαζοϕυλακιου]
-Mark 11:15= κατεστρεψε, (verse 16=) σκευος
-Nehemiah 13:9= the proper vessels “were returned” [επεστρεψα] (same word in verse 2)
-Mark 12:41= γαζοϕυλακιου
[42] And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. [43] And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, “Amen I say unto you, ‘This poor widow has thrown more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: [44] For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.
-Malachi 3:5-10 = “I’ll be a swift witness [μαρτυς] against … those who oppress the hireling , the widow..” then there’s mention of “robbing God” (the word ‘rob’ being used here 3 times in one sentence) = see Mark 12:41 about the widow’s two mites…
-cf. 2Kings 12:5-17 where king Joash ends financial corruption in the temple and Mark 11:15-17, the term for offering box appears three times for some reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment